This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for ticket #303

cc

changetime

2012-10-05 06:59:49

component

WG1 - Core

description

[Based on feedback from Marc Feeley.]

`delay` and `force` were simple balanced concepts, but the introduction of `lazy` somewhat confuses the issue - when is `delay` appropriate and when is `lazy`?  A simple solution would be to rename `lazy` to `delay-force`, indicating it is simply the composition of `delay` and `force`, and letting people see directly in code the balance of `delay`s and `force`s.

id

keywords

milestone

owner

cowan

priority

major

reporter

alexshinn

resolution

fixed

severity

status

closed

summary

"lazy" is a confusing name

time

2011-10-20 21:19:00

type

defect

Changes

Change at time 2012-10-05 06:59:49

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

raw-time

1349395189065000

ticket

time

2012-10-05 06:59:49

Change at time 2012-10-05 06:59:49

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

fixed

oldvalue

raw-time

1349395189065000

ticket

time

2012-10-05 06:59:49

Change at time 2012-10-05 06:59:49

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

writing

raw-time

1349395189065000

ticket

time

2012-10-05 06:59:49

Change at time 2012-04-07 03:08:55

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

raw-time

1333742935732305

ticket

time

2012-04-07 03:08:55

Change at time 2012-04-07 03:08:55

author

cowan

field

owner

newvalue

cowan

oldvalue

alexshinn

raw-time

1333742935732305

ticket

time

2012-04-07 03:08:55

Change at time 2012-04-07 03:08:55

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

writing

oldvalue

decided

raw-time

1333742935732305

ticket

time

2012-04-07 03:08:55

Change at time 2012-04-05 09:17:50

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

The WG voted to adopt this proposal.

oldvalue

raw-time

1333592270550490

ticket

time

2012-04-05 09:17:50

Change at time 2012-04-05 09:17:50

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

decided

oldvalue

new

raw-time

1333592270550490

ticket

time

2012-04-05 09:17:50

Change at time 2011-11-07 05:55:24

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

Removing discussion of `eager` to ticket #307

oldvalue

raw-time

1320616524000000

ticket

time

2011-11-07 05:55:24

Change at time 2011-11-07 05:55:24

author

cowan

field

summary

newvalue

"lazy" is a confusing name

oldvalue

lazy and eager names are confusing

raw-time

1320616524000000

ticket

time

2011-11-07 05:55:24

Change at time 2011-11-07 05:55:24

author

cowan

field

description

newvalue

[Based on feedback from Marc Feeley.]

`delay` and `force` were simple balanced concepts, but the introduction of `lazy` somewhat confuses the issue - when is `delay` appropriate and when is `lazy`?  A simple solution would be to rename `lazy` to `delay-force`, indicating it is simply the composition of `delay` and `force`, and letting people see directly in code the balance of `delay`s and `force`s.

oldvalue

[Based on feedback from Marc Feeley.]

delay and force were simple balanced concepts, but the
introduction of lazy somewhat confuses the issue - when
is delay appropriate and when is lazy?  A simple solution
would be to rename lazy to delay-force, indicating it is
simply the composition of delay and force, and letting
people see directly in code the balance of delays and forces.

The eager procedure is named particularly unfortunately
because it sounds as though it is in some way paired with
lazy, and there is anecdotal evidence it was voted in on
this misunderstanding.  In fact, it is completed unrelated
to lazy, being just a utility procedure that has never been
seen used in practice.  Perhaps a better name for it would
be promise, since it just creates an (already computed)
promise value.

raw-time

1320616524000000

ticket

time

2011-11-07 05:55:24